§ (1) Whilst any land of which possession has been so taken is in the possession of 1977 an occupying department after the termination of the present War, any building or other work which for purposes connected with the present War has been erected or constructed on, over, or under the land wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or, with the consent of the occupying department, at the expense of some person not being a person interested in the land, may be removed, without the consent of any person interested in the land, by the occupying department, or, with the consent of the occupying department, by the person at whose expense it was erected or constructed, any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding:
Provided that—
- (a) where the building or work was erected or constructed partly at the expense of a person interested in the land; or
- (b) where in pursuance of an agreement with a Government Department any person interested in the land is entitled to the benefit of or to prohibit the removal of the building or work;
Provided also that where under any agreement a Government Department is entitled to remove any such building or work nothing in this Section shall prejudice the rights of the Department or any other person under the agreement.
(2) Where any building or work has been removed under the powers conferred by this Section the occupying Department shall, at their option, either cause the land to be restored to the condition in which it was before the building or work was erected or constructed or pay such compensation in respect of the depreciation (if any) in the value of the land attributable to the disturbance of the soil as in default of agreement may be determined by the Commission.
(3) Where any building or any machinery or plant fixed or attached to any land has, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected wholly or partly at the expense of the State in accordance with an agreement with any' person interested in the land, any power to remove the building, machinery, and plant so erected conferred on any Government Department under the agreement may be exercised, 1978 notwithstanding any rights in the building, machinery, or plant to which any other person interested in the land, whether as mortgagee or otherwise, maybe entitled.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words " at their option" ["the Occupying Department shall at their option"], and to insert instead thereof the words " at the option of the persons interested."
The option is entirely with the Department whether they shall restore the land to the condition it was in or pay such compensation as may be agreed upon. The Amendment proposes exactly to turn that position round. It proposes to confer on the persons interested the power of deciding whether the land shall be restored to the condition it was in before the building was set up, or whether they shall claim compensation from the Commission. I admit that at the First Heading of the Amendment I thought it was rather more—than ought to be given to the owner of the land, because it occurred to me that there might be cases in which it was practically impossible to restore the land to the condition it was in before the buildings were put upon it, or it might cost such an enos—mous sum of public money that such restoration might be against the public interest, and altogether unreasonable and out of all, proportion to the good which would come of it. I can quite conceive that that might be so because, after all,. when enormous foundations of concrete have been put in, and concrete roads three feet deep have been made all over the property, it may be a physical impossibility to do it It may be said that I am arguing against my own Amendment, but what I do not understand is, if my hon. Friend's Amendment is unreasonable, how the Amendment of the Solicitor-General later on can be carried out, because that Amendment provides that in the case of any common, open space, or allotment, the land shall be so restored as aforesaid to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. If you are able, as I understand the Solicitor-General suggests it is possible, to restore common lands, open spaces, and public parks to the condition in which they were before the War broke out, and before buildings were put upon them, and if it is in the public interest that that should be done in the case of land which is open to the public and 1979 belongs to the public, then I consider the same process ought to be carried out, if the owner so wishes it, in the case of private land, and that the land should be so restored. I think it is unreasonable in the case of common land to undertake to restore it entirely, because I think in some cases it is practically impossible, except at very great cost. Some words ought to be put in, such as "as far as may be," or something of that sort.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison)We provide for that.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI do not see anything in the Solicitor-General's Amendment about " so far as may be."
§ Dr. ADDISONIt says "to the satisfaction of the Board."
§ Mr. ASHLEYTo the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who are to say whether the work has been carried out in a right and proper manner. I think this Amendment raises rather a bigger question than at first sight would seem to be raised by it. I will, however, reserve my further remarks until I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has got to say, because upon what he says de pends whether I shall go to a Division or make any further remark. What I want to put to him is this: That I do not see why a differentiation should be made between a public park and private property in this particular case. I think it is absurd, in the case of a public park or an open space, to undertake to put it back exactly in the some position it was in before the War, because in so many cases that may mean the spending of thousands and thousands of pounds, and will be a waste of public money.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am not quite able to follow the remarks of the hon. Member as relating to his Amendment. It is surely a short statement to make as to whether it may be at the option of the Department or at the option of the person interested. The question he is touching upon does not arise upon this Amendment, but upon another Amendment.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI apologise for straying beyond the limits of order, but it seemed to me that I could not practically discuss my Amendment until I knew what was the intention of the Government in relation 1980 to their Amendment further on. I will simply move my Amendment, and reserve any further remarks until I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
§ Mr. BRUNNERIf these words are put in the Solicitor-General's Amendment, which comes next, cannot be moved, because the Solicitor-General proposes to leave out the words "at their option."
§ Dr. ADDISONI can see the force or the general contention raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Ashley). He, and some of his Friends, objected, on the Second Reading, to leaving the option entirely with the Department, and, therefore, in order to meet them, the Solicitor-General put down the Amendments which stand in his name. The substance of those Amendments, I think, meet essentially the point raised by the hon. Member, that the option should no longer remain entirely with the Department. I think the hon. Member has stated the case as well as it can be stated for leaving the option entirely with the owner or the person interested in the site. He also made a further point, that in some cases it would be physically impossible to restore the land, and, therefore, we must have qualifying phrases, but we shall come to that later. The Solicitor-General agrees that the words "at their option" shall be left out in order that we may insert the words "Provided that if the Department and the persons interested in the land do not come to an agreement between themselves, then the question shall be referred to the Commission for their decision." I think that meets the case that was put before us that the option should not be entirely with the Department, but that where the parties were unable to agree the case should be referred to the Commission.
§ Sir F. BANBURYmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
§ Dr. ADDISONIf the hon. Baronet can point out that my right hon. Friend's Amendment does not do that—that is what we want to do—we shall be willing to make the Amendment achieve that end. Perhaps he will show us that it does not achieve that end when we come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI think the Government have not given full force to the considerations which arise in the case where a person has allowed the Government to 1981 come on his land, and in many cases probably he is charging no rent, and the Government quite properly for their own purposes have put in drains or cement works, or similar things upon the land. At the end of the War, when the Government no longer need these things, if they take the buildings down, then what my hon. Friend wants, and what I submit to the Committee is a perfectly sound right to give to the owner of the land, is to entitle him to say to the Government, "At my option you must take away these things. If you do not take them away you will have to pay compensation." The landlord is then in a position, at his own option, to tell the Government to take those things away. Is that a very hard measure to mete out to the Government in these particular cases? I submit that it is not. It is perfectly fair that if the Government goes upon a person's land and puts buildings upon it, and afterwards chooses to take away those buildings, the owner should be entitled to ask for the land to be restored to the position it was in before the Government went on the land. At his option the Government ought to be required to take away cement foundations and other things. I gave an example, on the Second Reading, of the case of a cricket ground which has been lent to the Government and where they have built upon it certain huts. These huts will be taken down later, and the owner ought to be able to say, "Take away the foundations also on which these huts have been built." It may be expensive, but when the owner has allowed his land to be used in that way he ought to have the right to tell the Government to restore the land to its original state. The Government have seen that there is something in that, and they propose, by a series of Amendments, to carry out the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, and to say, in effect, we are not going to give you an option, but we are going to say that if the Government cannot agree with the landlord about the matter they can go to the Commission, and the Commission can decide whether the grounds are to be cleared or not. That, I think, is the intention which the Government propose to carry out; but I submit that it is not acting quite fairly to the person who is the owner of the land. The option, as my hon. Friend's Amendment sets out, should be given to the owner of the land, and if the Government choose to pull down the houses, or whatever has been erected upon the land, they should be bound, if 1982 the owner wishes, to have the land cleaned up for him. My hon. Friend asked me to move this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boyton), who has great experience in these matters, has pointed out the difficulties in connection with brickwork and concrete foundations, and these should be dealt with at the option of the owner of the land.
Mr. D. WHITEI hope that the Government will not only not accept the Amendment, but I have some doubts about the Government's own Amendment, which is on the Paper. The point is that after the buildings are removed the land is to be returned cleared of what was put upon it or into it—that is, restored to its original condition—or, if not restored, that compensation should be paid. The question is, Who is to have the option of saying which of these things is to be done? Under the Bill as it stands the Department is to have the option. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member the owners of the land are to have the option. There is this particular danger if the option is transferred: It has already been said that there are cases in which it may be physically very difficult to remove certain foundations or other things upon the land, so that the cost of removing them would be out of all proportion to the value thereby conferred. But if the owner of the land were given the option of saying whether this should be done he can insist upon that being done, and can hold out for a high price as compensation for agreeing that it should not be done. That is a danger which I want to avoid. That alone would make me vote against the Amendment if it went to a Division. Under the Amendment of the Solicitor-General the first part of the Clause is to be restored to its original condition, and then words are to be inserted that if the persons interested in the land agree, or the Commission consent, then compensation is to be paid. That seems open to the same objection, because if the persons interested in the land decline to agree, what is to happen then? Are they to be entitled to have the land absolutely cleared, whatever it may cost? And if they are entitled to that, then they may be entitled in default of that to claim a most inequitable large compensation. That seems to me to be the main point of the Amendment, and 1983 the great reason why the option, exercised reasonably and fairly, should be left in the hands of the Departments.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has advanced the extraordinary argument that he can imagine cases in which, owing to physical difficulties, it would be impossible to restore the land to the condition in which it was before it was taken over unless a very large amount of money was spent upon it, and therefore he is in favour of compensation being paid. Does that mean that proper compensation shall be paid so as to enable the landowners to restore the land to the condition in which it was before it was taken, which he has a right to ask, or that small compensation shall be paid which will not restore the land and which will mean that the landowner, for having done something very useful to the State, should be fined? I never heard a more extraordinary argument advanced. The dislike which the hon. Member has towards landowners has allowed him to run away with his reason, because I do not believe that anybody in any quarter of the House would seek to support a contention which practically comes to this, that if your property is in such a condition that it cost, perhaps, £10,000 to put it right, we are to say, "We will not allow this, but we will have somebody who will assess compensation which will be only about £2,000."
Mr. D. WHITEThat is not my argument at all. The point turns upon the question, Who should have the option? It is not whether the land is to be made as good as it was before, but whether it should be restored to its original condition.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause, because it says that the land shall be put into the condition in which it was before, but that if the Department prefers paying compensation it should have the right to pay compensation. Our contention was that that option should not be given to the Department, but should either be given to the owner or to some tribunal to adjudicate upon. Personally, I think, after consideration, that my right hon. Friend's Amendment does meet the point. But I could not listen without replying to the hon. Member opposite when he made a statement which it now appears he made because he did not understand what was in the Clause and had never read the Clause. [An HON. 1984 MEMBER: "Order!"] I do not know why some hon. Member ejaculated "Order!' The hon. Member said there was nothing in the Clause as to the necessity of restoring the land to the condition in which it was before, and that is not so.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEAs far as I understand the Amendment, if the State required a piece of accommodation land for the purpose of its factory, land which had attained already a building value and should be utilised for that purpose, and erect a factory on it, drained it and put it into the best possible condition for use for buildings, then, according to this Amendment, the State can be compelled by the landowner to restore it to the condition of agricultured or accommodation land. That puts it into the power of the owner virtually to levy blackmail upon the Government. For that reason this seems to me to be an utterly unsustainable Amendment.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the proposed words. 'at the option of the persons interested,' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "or" ["constructed or pay such"], to insert the words " shall, if the persons interested in the land agree or the Commission consent, instead of so restoring the land."
Mr. D. WHITEWill this meet the point I raised as to what will happen in the event of the persons interested in the land not agreeing, and standing out for compensation, or standing out for the land being restored to the condition in which it formerly was 1
§ Sir G. CAVEThere is an alternative. Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words " Provided that in the case of any common, open space, or allotment, the land shall be so restored as aforesaid to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
§ Mr. HARDYI am obliged to the Solicitor-General for having met in some way the point I raised on the Second Reading, and with which I endeavoured to deal in my Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also,put down a new Clause, as well as this proviso here 1985 and I would like to ask whether he feels that this goes quite far enough. In his new Clause the right hon. Gentleman mentions open spaces or allotments, also public or private parks. Here, in this Amendment, he only uses the words " any common, open 'space or allotment." The local authorities are very anxious about public parks, and if it is not quite certain that public parks are included in public spaces, I think the words ought to be added. There is just as much objection to leaving the land unrestored in public parks as in common or open spaces, and it is very desirable that words should be inserted. The right hon. Gentleman, in his later new Clause, has acknowledged private parks. In this case they ought really to be dealt with rather more generously than other properties, and I would suggest that he should add words so that in the case of commons, open spaces or allotments, and public and private parks, the land should in all cases be restored to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Public authorities certainly feel very strongly on the matter of public parks.
§ Sir G. CAVEI propose to move an Amendment later under which the expression open spaces will include any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purpose of public recreation. That would cover the places commonly called public parks. In regard to private parks, I think we ought to confine ourselves to property which is public, for private parks are not on the same footing for the purposes of this Clause.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYWhy is it necessary to have public and private parks in the later Amendment?
§ Sir G. CAVEWe will consider that later.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI am very much obliged to the Solicitor-General for the form of this Amendment, but it does not seem to me that one Department should sit in judgment on another Department, and I suggest the omission of those words which refer to the land being restored to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. DICKINSONI cannot but think that we ought to take exception to this proposal, because the whole principle of the conduct of public places is that in no circumstances are they to be interfered 1986 with except by Act of Parliament. I assume the Board of Agriculture is to express satisfaction as to the method by which the land was restored, but it would be better if the Board of Agriculture were to have the power, as a Department, of authorising the restoration of land. I think that the words used in the Amendment are absolutely wrong. I am particularly anxious, and I may say that everyone is anxious, that commons and open spaces under all circumstances ought to be restored to the public, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether those words should be left in at all.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
I do not quite see what is the object of introducing the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The hon. Member who spoke a few moments ago objected to the insertion of these words on the ground that he did not think one Department ought to judge the work of another Department. I think that is an extremely good reason, and I was rather astonished it came from that side of the House. Personally, I think if you want to set up somebody as an authority you should set up the Railway Commission. They are the authority who all through have been put forward as being the people to hear parties in the event of a dispute, and the dispute is to be remitted to them for settlement. I certainly do not think, especially in these days of bureaucratic tyranny, that you can come forward and say that one Department is to do something, and if the person affected by the action of that Department is not satisfied he must go to another Department. I certainly feel very strongly on the point. I do not see why private parks should not be included just as much as public parks. A large number of people in this country have been very generous in the use of their private parks, and I can give several instances in which private parks have been given up to the use of the Army. Why should not those parks be put in the same position as public parks? As a matter of fact, the owners of those private parks are hardly used by the fact of their property not being put in the same position as public parks, which are under the public authority with the ratepayers at their back, while the landowner in many cases has 1987 only himself to rely upon. I really do think he ought to be put in the same position as the public authority that have the ratepayers at their back. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision as to the inclusion of private parks.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe object of the proposal is fairly plain. We want to restore the land, and we want someone to see if we have done our duty in that respect, and what body could be better for that purpose than the Board of Agriculture? I am very much surprised that my hon. Friends do not see the benefit of the Clause with these words inserted. I do not think they are unreasonable, and there is no objection from the Departments interested.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI am s6rry the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet is not accepted. I join with him in opposition to any extension of bureaucratic methods. We have come to a time when we can no longer regard one Department as the proper custodian of the general benefits of the community as regards another. I do think there should have been some other authority. Possibly the local governing authority would have been as good as any other. If the suggestion as to private parks as taken by the Solicitor-General, I hope it will only be with regard to those which are ordinarily open to the public.
§ Mr. PROTHEROIt seems to me as the Board of Agriculture represents the old Inclosure Commissioners, and as all the authority over commons is vested in them, that even if he did not put in these words but put in some other authority, yet you could not oust the jurisdiction and authority of the Board of Agriculture. Therefore these words are the right words and the only words which could properly be put in.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr BRUNNERI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the following new Sub-section:
"(3) The occupying Department (within three years after the termination of the present War shall remove all buildings and works whether of a permanent or temporary character which have been erected or constructed for pur- 1988 poses connected with the present War on, over, or under any common land, common, open space, or allotment set out for any public purpose under an Inclosure Act or award."
This Clause is now, I think, in a rather curious position as far as drafting is concerned. It refers to where any building work has been removed, and it goes on to say, "provided that the land shall be restored as aforesaid." Under Sub-section (2) the building or work may or may not be removed. The drafting is therefore very clumsy. This Sub-section which I now propose would remove any doubt as to whether buildings or other erections upon common land had to be removed or not.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think the Amendment which I moved and which has been carried will effect what the hon. Member desires. You cannot restore the land to its former condition without removing the buildings. If the hon. Member will allow me I will consider the matter between now and Report, and if it appears to require further words I will insert them.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI think there should be some sort of limitation as to the time for clearing away.
§ Amendment negatived.